Observations, censures, and confutations of notorious errours in Mr. Hobbes his Leviathan and other his bookes to which are annexed occasionall anim-adversions on some writings of the Socinians and such hæreticks of the same opinion with him / by William Lucy ...

CHAP. XXXII.

Of our Saviour's being the Word; Of Ebion and Cerin∣thus; The Socinian shifts; Of Christ's speaking by figures; His being the Word by none; The division of it by internal and external; The ancient Philoso∣phers language consonant to that in holy Scripture about the Word; Who excelled the Socinians in the know∣ledge of eternal life; With whom God in Saint Ioh. 1. is but an Appllative; Each particular in which Text is discussed by the Bishop.

Sect. 1.

THE next name, that I shall undertake to treat of, is that of (Word) Our Saviour is termed the word;* 1.1 and herein I shall treat upon the first part of the first chap. of S. John's Gospel, which because it is of high con∣cernment in the setting forth of this Truth, Socinus, be∣sides those many several places, in which he hath tou∣ched upon it, hath written a distinct Comment upon it; So hath Valentinus Smalcius; I shall consider them both in my Treatise upon this Scripture; and whatso∣ever else I find by them, other where, or any other, pertinently objected▪ to begin then with Socinus in his explication of the first part of the first chap. of Iohn,* 1.2 put out in Octavo at Racovia 1618. presently after his preface, pag. 4. [Primum itaq (saith he) quicquid de Ebi∣one & Cerinthio vulgò ostentatur; First (saith he) what∣soever is commonly boasted of concerning Ebion and Ce∣rinthus, against whom, as if they denied Christ to have been before his mother, John writ his Gospell, it shall be judged a figment; for, besides that there is no solid thing brought in its proofe, there are not lacking efficacious rea∣sons,

which constraine us to think the contrary] Thus far he; I will draw his reasons short and answer them; but before he undertake's his reasons he bring's his surmise, why men were of another opinion from him, such as which he cannot answer satisfactorily, but in this place put's off; that they understand not the sense of the Scrip∣ture; but I let this discourse alone; his first reason, why this opinion of St. John's Gospell should be false, is page 6. first [that the opinion of Ebion and Cerinthus, was much other (if Ebion were a certaine man) and i•• so declared by all our Age, and in former ages;* 1.3 or if we credit Irenaeus a most antient Writer, who, recording the doctrines of either, doth not so much as shew that doctrine, that they should deny, that Christ, the word of God, was before Mary; yea, when he mention's Cerinthus, he speake's the cleane contrary.] I love not to trouble the Reader with the vanity of citing Authors; for the clearing of this story, I shall set down what Irenaeus speake's onely; and first for the opinion of Cerinthus, his words are cleare; in his first book Chap. 25. speaking of Cerinthus, he adde's that [Jesus was not borne of a Virgin, but that he was born of Joseph and Mary, as all other men; after his baptisme Christ descended into him, from that Principality which is above all, &c.] So that here I observe a double nature which Cerinthus conceived to be in our Saviour, a man∣hood, which he called Jesus, begotten by Joseph on Mary; and something above a manhood, which he cal∣led Christ, which, not untill he was thirty yeares old, came into him at his baptisme: that Jesus suffered, as he speake's a little after, but Christ did not, being spirituall. Thus you see ••renaeus his expression concerning Cerinthus; where you may observe that he al∣lowe's our Saviour no being before he was borne

of Mary, as he terme's her; for although he grant's him an additionall after his baptisme, by the descend∣ing down of Christ unto him; yet that person had no being before, and that additionall was long after his birth of the blessed Virgin; and it is not expressed that he thought that Christ, which came into Jesus, had any being before that coming down; And Tertullian adversus haereticos Num. 312. affirme's of Cerinthus, that he say'd, [Christ was onely a man, without Divinity] to which that of Irenaeus well enough agree's; I quote Tertullian now in Pamelius his edition, 1617. So that there, it seem's, that Cerinthus, concerning our Saviour's Divinity, had the same opinion with Socinus. Well, to goe on with the story of Cerinthus, he was a man of a most turbulent Spirit; Epiphanius saith, he was the man that raised the charge against St. Peter at Jerusalem,* 1.4 for communicating with the Gentiles, Acts 11. in the Case of Cornelius; as likewise, that he raised the tumult a∣gainst St. Paul, about Circumcision, with a whole leafe of such schismaticall practices of his; for they say, he was a Jew by his Father, and so stood, still, for the pri∣viledges of their Nation, and the observation of their Rites; upon this ground the loving Spirit of St. John, justly abhorred him, and therefore, as Irenaeus in his third Book, and third Chapter, there are some who have heard Polycarpus report, &c. (which Polycarpus was con∣stituted, Bishop of Smyrna, by St. John, as Irenaeus, Eu∣sebius, and all agree, and that Angell of the Church of Smyrna, which St. John writ to, Apocalyps 2.8.) he, say'd Irenaeus (who, himselfe had seene Polycarpus) re∣ported, that St. John, goeing to wash himselfe in the Bath at Ephesus, saw Cerinthus, and presently hasted out againe, unwashed, saying, that he might feare the Bath would fall,

where was that enemy of the Truth Cerinthus; so that here you see two things, that the Opinion of Cerinthus was much the same with that of the Socinians; that this Cerinthus was abhorred by St. John, not as a man, but as an enemy to truth; so that St. John, hating his opinions, might be reasonably thought to provide a∣gainst them; and all this evident out of that most anci∣ent Author, which Socinus himselfe quote's; now let us see, de facto, what was done: The same Author, Irenaeus, in his eleventh Chapter of his third Book, some∣what before the midle of that Chapter, affirme's in ex∣presse termes, that St. John was willing, by his declaring the Gospell, to take away the errour of Cerinthus; then which we could have nothing more cleare, a most Au∣thentique Author affirming it, upon most just and rea∣sonable grounds; Socinus then say'd too much, when he affirmed, that it was farre from all reason, that Saint John should write against Ebion and Cerinthus; here we see the contrary, as much as it is possible for story to give; but he dispute's againe against it page 7. De∣inde versimile non est, &c. Moreover it is not likely that John would passe over so great a matter so slightly with si∣lence, but that he would name the haeretiques, or at the least their haeresy, either secretly, or openly, and detest it; which since he hath not done, why did he not somewhere clearely say, that Christ was by nature God and Man, or that he existed before he was born of Mary? why did he affect to be so obscure and sparing, in a thing of so great moment, the ignorance whereof bring's eternall destruction, &c. thus farre he; I will not undertake to understand all the Apostle's reasons, but am confident, he had abundance of reason for all he did, but will answer all he sayth; first that the Scripture seldome set's down the haereti∣ques

or haeresyes against which it write's, although some∣times it doth. Secondly, to that he saith the Apostle doth not clearly witnesse that Christ was by nature God and Man, or existed before he was born of Mary, I shall shew him that he hath, in as cleare termes, as possibly could be, although not in the same; and I am confi∣dent,* 1.5 that had he expressed this Mystery in those very words he set's down, he and his Companions would have cavilled at them, that those Termes are used o∣therwise in some places; that there was some Copy, or other, without one of them, or all; that they did re∣late to something before, or behind, and not to Christ; which are their usuall evasions; but it is a vanity of them to teach the Apostle how he should expresse him∣selfe, he hath done it abundantly, and as clearly, as those words would doe, as we shall see shortly.

Sect. 2.

* 1.6But he urgeth farther, that [St. John give's this and no other reason, towards the end of his Gospell, John 20.31. Cur Jesu signa, (I translate it) why he writ the Miracles of Jesus or (as others would have it) his whole history, then that we should believe that Jesus is Christ, the Sonne of God, and, believing that, we should have life eternall.] I will not trouble his lection which is very erroneous, but let the Reader observe, that although St. John say, that this was the cause why those things, which he writ, were written; yet he useth not that phrase put upon him by Socinus, this & non aliam and no other; but sup∣pose he had, this will serve our designe, for all we la∣bour for, is to prove, that our Saviour is the Sonne of God; it is true, these troublesome men have brought distinctions of the Sonne into naturall and adopted; and

the like; but that he is such a Sonne, as believing of which we may have eternall life, can be conceived no∣thing lesse, then that he must be the naturall Sonne, of the same nature with his Father; all other beliefe, I doubt, will fall short of that excellency; and therefore, Beza, most genuinely,* 1.7 according to the Originall (which prepose's an Article both to Christ and the Sonne) reade's it thus, That ye should believe that Jesus is that Christ, that Sonne of God; which Emphasis doth ex∣ceedingly much elevate the Conceipt of him, shewing him to be an extraordinary Christ, and an extraordina∣ry, not merely an adopted, Sonne; which all his Servants are here bound to believe; so that, it seeme's, St. John writ this Gospell to shew, that our Saviour was, in some eminent and peculiar way, the Sonne of God;* 1.8 that which he adde's, that believing in him we might have eternall life, is an absolute avoyding a strong Argument to prove his Godhead; for although I think by life here is meant eternall life; yet in the Originall there is no word of eternity, but it is word for word, as it is in our English [ye might have life] through his name, or in his name, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, his power, his strength, which none could grant, but the great God; and truely I wonder where he got that translation, for it is without the Originall, nor Beza, nor Erasmus, nor Montanus, nor any, that I see,* 1.9 but something like it Tremelius his tran∣slation out of the Syriacke, and yet he reserve's that Em∣phasis, which I make use of, and render's it thus, and when ye shall believe, ye shall have life eternall by his name, the force of which last phrase, by his name, was cleane omitted by Socinus; so then it seeme's to me, that if St. Iohn did here, in these words, put down the totall reason of his writing this Gospell (which can never be

evinced) yet in this is clearely taught this Conclusion of our Saviours divinity, and that he was the Son of God; nor could ever man have understood it in any other sense then we doe, untill that foolish conceipt of a crea∣ted God was introduced, of which (God willing) I en∣tend to treate hereafter. Thus I hope I have given a satisfactory answer to his objections against the story of Cerinthus, which one thing granted, the expressions of the rest would be undoubtedly very perspicuous.

Sect. 3.

So now at the last, I will addresse my selfe to my businesse, the first Chap. of St. John verse 1. In the be∣ginning was the word, &c. there is scarce any one word in these fourteen or fifteen verses, which I intend (God willing) to expound, that hath not abid some slurre, or other, to discountenance the true sense of it; I shall be∣gin with the first word, In the beginning, [This (say they with one consent) is understood of the beginning of the Gospell,* 1.10 which, (say they) was when John Baptist begun to preach,] so Socinus, where before, at the bottome of page 13. and page 14. In principio erat verbum, In the beginning was the Word, that is, Christ the Son of God, in the beginning of the Gospell, to wit, in that time in which John Baptist began to recall the Israelitish people to the right; and before that, by the preaching of the Baptist, he was known to the Jewes, he was, and he was designed by God to this Office (that is) of manifesting his will] thus far Socinus; and by this we see his conceipt to be, that in the beginning,* 1.11 was in the beginning of the Baptist's preaching, then was Christ, the word which was man; he wonder's much, up and down, that men should conceive that St. John should write such mysteries of Christ's

essence, according to his divinity, where indeed, we think, he make's him write the unreasonable things of his humanity that ever could have been conceived to be expressed by such phrases, to understand which I must trespasse a little farther upon the Reader's pati∣ence, to consider what these writers meane by this terme (Word) which Socinus and from him, the rest ex∣presse thus.

Sect. 4.

That [it is a figurative expression and is mean't of Christ in his Office, not his divine nature; figurative; and so it is either a Metaphor drawn from the similitude Christ hath with our Words;* 1.12 for as our Words expresse our minds to those we converse withall, so Christ expressed the Will of God to men; Secondly, by a Metonymy,* 1.13 because Christ is the Author of that word which most eminently ought to be called such, because it is more profitable, and more excellent then all other, therefore (saith he) as Christ sometimes useth a Metaphor, calleth himself a vine, a Shepheard, a gate, because he might most fitly be compared to these, and now speaking Metonimycally, he saith, he is the truth, the life and the resurrection, because he is the Author and cause of these, so here, &c.] thus far he; in which he and they have taken a greate deale of paines to raise mud in, and darken this cleare streame.

Sect. 5.

To which I shall say first, that these figures are often used by Christ,* 1.14 and such expressions under the notions of Divinity more clearly intelligible; but when they are used by him, he give's some intimation to his Audi∣tor how he shall understand them figuratively onely, ei∣ther in that place, or some other; otherwise a man

would hardly assent to him in any but a literal sense. There are abundance of other such like names affirmed of our Saviour, besides those particularly specified by him in this place, all which to handle would require a Volume: I will not therefore engage upon them, but these, he instanceth in now, I will touch upon, that by them the rest may be discerned: First then he call's himself a vine,* 1.15 John 15.1. I am the true vine, that is, I am like a true vine, a true, not a false vine, which look's like a vine, but is not a true vine, that may be confided in, which will bring forth fruit, and not deceive the hus∣bandman: now that ye may discern the similitude, ob∣serve, he adde's, my Father is the husbandman, and so go's on with the branches: which evidently shew that it is a Similitude. For the second, John 10.11. I am the good shepheard,* 1.16 he explain's it immediately, a good shep∣heard giveth his life for his sheep, and so along in that chapter he shew's how his sheep are righteous, which make's it apparent that it was a Similitude. Again, his last Metaphor is used in the same chapter, ver. 7. I am the Door of the sheep;* 1.17 we see he was the shepheard, and he is the door, in a diverse sense; as he is the door, he admit's, and shut's out: now these things are so appa∣rent, that the words all about them express them to be Similitudes; if not, a thousand places of Scripture might teach us, that he could not otherwise be a Wooden door; or a vine, that is, a plant; or a shepheard, such as a countrey-shepheard, whose sheep were beasts. Now let us examine his Metonymy: He saith, he is the truth, life,* 1.18 resurrection; two of these I find in one sentence in the 14. of this Gospel the 6. I am, saith our Saviour, the way, the truth, and the life: Truth and Life are his in∣stances; our Saviour having told the Disciples ver. 4.

Whither I go, ye know, and the way ye know: Thomas an∣swered, Lord, we know not whither thou goest, how can we then know the way? Jesus answered to this, I am the way, the truth, the life; in this word, the way, no doubt but there may be both those figures he speakes of; a Metaphor first, for as a way is that Middle place which is between the two Termes (à quo and ad quem) from whence, and whither, participating of both and leading whither a man tend's; so our Saviour, God and man, participating of both the extreames, heaven and earth; and Man, walking a long by him, shall come to heaven; next we may observe a Metonymy, he was the way, be∣cause by his word he direct's us the way; because by his life he hath trod it out for us; and by his graces he help's us to walke in it; and this is apparent to any man who shall consider how impossible it is, for Christ to be a way, a trodden path of ground; or how impos∣sible it is for any such way to lead to the Journeyes end, which he aimed at.

The second Terme which is mentioned by Socinus is Truth,* 1.19 and for this I may say that I doubt whether there be any figure necessary; for Christ, as God, being Truth it self, he must needs likewise be verax, true spea∣king, as well as verus; and if he should deceive or misguide in the way, he should go against his nature, and deny himselfe, as St. Paul phraseth it, 2 Tim. 2.13. now I can justly say that here is no figure; or, if any, it is but this, which the context exact's, I am the way, by directing you to it, and that an infallible one, which no man can be deceived by, for I am truth its self, which make's good all I have said; and the same I may speake of his last Terme (Life) I may justly affirme that there needs be no figure in it; Christ is the life, there is an Article to

every Terme, life its selfe, life in the fountaine; all other lives are Peters, Pauls, a horse's or dog's life, but he is life its self, life in the fountaine, like light in the Sun, much more glorious then any other; therefore thou, who seekest life, life eternal, which is the journeys end of every man, must come by the way which I appoint who am Truth; and come to me, and thou shalt have it. I know as he is life in the fountain, and so may be under∣stood; so he may be a life to us, and called our life, the life of men, of which hereafter, both as an effici∣ent, and an object; as an efficient producing that life; as an object, that life of ours consisting in the beatificall vision of the most sacred and blessed Trinity; but I see no necessity forcing me to this second exposition; but if so the context lead's to it, I think I may run through Twenty more, and certainly there are Twenty more, such speeches; but we shall find that there is some∣thing in the matter of the discourse, or in the Circum∣stances of the Text, which induce to it; but in that I have in hand nothing to perswade any man that this Term (word) should be understood according to any of those figures.

Sect. 6.

* 1.20Socinus saith, it is used now here in Scripture, but in the writings of this Evangelist; so my search need not be farre; in this place of the Gospell in his first Epistle Chapter 1. Verse 1. that which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen, with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the word of Life, &c. here is no Circumstance inducing us to search a sense, that merely a man should be called the word, but rather the contrary, something divine, to which that humanity was united, because (as here) it

was from the beginning; and because, in the second Verse, that life, of which this is called the word, is term∣ed eternall life, which was with the Father, and was mani∣fested to us, was eternall, and with him, he must therefore be eternally with him, this was afterwards manifested to us. A third place is Rev. 19.13. his name is called the word of God; where I can find againe nothing to that sense, but in each place of these, this Term, word, may most aptly be understood,* 1.21 according to the Orthodox Catholick sense, for the internal word of God; nor indeed can they shew me any thing like it in Scrirture. Let a man conceive with himselfe what a strange uncouth phrase it is for a man, who speake's, to be called the word, which he speake's; yet so must he in their lan∣guage.

Sect. 7.

Yea, but they have just such another fetch;* 1.22 Aaron is is sayd, Exodus 4.16. to be Moses his mouth; the phrase is cleane otherwise, and is excellently rendred by our Translators, instead of a mouth, because Moses had not a clear utterance; the second Instance is that,* 1.23 Iohn Bap∣tist is called a voyce; for my part I think it a reasonable exposition to say, that Iohn Baptist was rather he that made the noise and voyce in the Wilderness, then the voyce its self; to which purpose let us look upon the 40. of Isaiah, verse 3. from whence that Text is made use of, by three Evangelists; we shall find there, that the Prophet, like a man in a rapture, seeme's to heare this noise or voice in the Wilderness, and here utter's what he heard; he saw in his vision Iohn Baptist in a Wilderness, fitting and preparing men for the Gospell; but the voice he heard was the v••ice of Iohn Baptist, who did preach that Doctrine there specifyed; I know but

one objection of moment can be framed against this, which is that Iohn 1.23. when Iohn had been asked, who art thou? he answered, I am the voice, &c. as saith the Prophet Isaiah; to this, first it is memorable, that in the Originall it is not, I am, but onely (I) it is thought by many that this Word I am ought to be understood, but if it be not, then he doth not affirme himselfe to be the voice, but onely leave's them to apprehend what he is, by the Prophet Isaiah; but if it be, and that we should read it, as it is commonly (I am) yet since he quote's the Prophet, I know no reason why it should be under∣stood in a sense d••ffering from the Prophets, especially since the two other Evangelists, which mention this place, have not one word of this I am; St. Matthew 3.3. for this is he which was spoken of by the Prophet Isaiah, the voice of one crying in the Wilderness; so likewise St. Luke 3.4. having before delivered, how he preached the Baptisme of Repentance, adde's, as it is written, in the Book of the words of Isaiah the Prophet, the voice of one, &c. well then, methinke's it is reasonable to conceive, that Iohn was rather he that cryed, as he did there, then the voice, which was cryed; but I reverence the Anti∣quity which expound it otherwise, and those heavenly Devotions which the Fathers have deduced from that Metaphor; and therefore will no further discusse that in∣terpretation, that deliver's Iohn to be the voice, but grant it, and Aaron the mouth of Moses, in Exodus; the Case is farre differing betwixt these and the word to be taken for Christ,* 1.24 who by them was mere man, in this sentence (In the beginning was the word) for consider, Reader, if in Exodus it had been said, the mouth was in the beginning, or midle, or latter end of a buisinesse, would any man living interpret that of Aaron, without

that Comment which the Spirit of God give's, when it saith, that Aaron should be a Spokesman for Moses, and therefore instead of a mouth unto him? again, had any Evangelist said, as here, the word was in the beginning; the voice was in the beginning, could any man have expounded it without that Glosse, of the Prophet Isaiah's saying, and St. Iohn's practice? it must there∣fore be as wild, and reasonlesse, to say, that this term (word) when there is no use of Speech, or other phrase in the whole Book of God, expounding it so, should be so interpreted, that our Saviour's humanity, which by them should speake this word, should be here called the word. I must begge the Reader's patience, for this te∣diousnesse, but the right understanding of this one syl∣lable (word) is of high Consideration, and therefore I have dwelled so long upon it, but now wee'le strike home.

Sect. 8.

In this sentence (In the beginning was the word) it is, not possible to understand this Tearm (word) of our Sa∣viour's humanity,* 1.25 which did exist in the beginning of the Gospell, which was when St. Iohn began to preach; for although our Saviour was then in being, yet he was not then the word, for the Gospell was not then preach∣ed, but about to be preached, and, according to them, he was called the word in reference onely to that word, which was the Gospell; so that although he was man before, in the beginning of the Gospell, yet he could not be, in their notion, the word then,* 1.26 neither Metaphorical∣ly, because then he had not revealed the will of God, concerning the Salvation of men; nor Metonymically,* 1.27 because, then, this word, which reveale's the will of God, was not produced, and the Text most expressely

set's downe the time, in the beginning was the word.

Sect. 9.

* 1.28But Socinus hath one shift, which is on the top of the 14. page of his Treatise against the Pasnonienses, pag. 61. [Christ was then, when John Baptist began to preach, and was then destined by God to that Office, to wit, in opening, or preaching the will of God.] Thus farre he; now the revealing the will of God is the nature of the word, and it seeme's, by him, that although Christ was not actual∣ly the word in the beginning of the Gospell, yet he w••s such in God's decree, and that may suffice, to make him the word; but let the Reader consider that he, who is decreed to be any thing, cannot be said to be such, un∣till he actually exist; now the Text saith, In the begin∣ning was the Word, not it shall be the Word when the de∣cree is expired; was, and shall be, differ as much as time can distinguish, and yet what the Text saith was, Soci∣nus saith shall be, when he saith, he was decreed to be; up∣on such a foundation we may say any thing, that is or shall be a thousand yeares hence, was a thousand yeares agoe, because it was then decreed to be such. And now it seeming to me, that I have answered whatsoever I have observed, delivered by any man in defence of their exposition, it will become me to apply my selfe to the Justification of our exposition, which thus I doe.

Sect. 10.

In the beginning was the word, that is, in the beginning of time,* 1.29 of things, when the world was created out of nothing, then was the word, then it had its being and exi∣stence; other things had their beginning, they being then made, but he being not a thing made in time, but

eternall, was then. This is a short delivering the true sense of the words, and I shall endeavour (God willing) to explaine them.

The first Term which I shall endeavour to expound is this Term (Word) a word is twofold, internall,* 1.30 and ex∣ternall; internall is that expression our intellect, or un∣derstanding, hath of its conceipt within its self; exter∣nall, is the expression of that internall conceipt, (I will not here stand upon the difference betwixt Sermo and Verbum, it is not materiall) that there is such a diffe∣rence, is apparent to any man who will consider how he deliver's nothing with his tongue, which he hath not a notion of, in his understanding, before; and that, which he deliver's with his tongue, is the same which was be∣fore in his understanding; in the Wombe when it is in the understanding, in its birth when it is delivered by the mouth; it had an internall being in the Soul, an externall being in the voice; now words are produced two wayes, either by voice, or by the hand; by the mouth, or the pen; this Philosophy we must needs apprehend, after our weak manner, to be true; true concerning God, for we cannot think of God as we ought, but we must think that he doth actually know his owne infinite excellen∣cyes, and all whatsoever he intend's to doe, or doth, in Heaven or Earth; this knowledge, being active, produ∣ceth somewhat which is his Word; when he pleaseth to expresse himselfe outwardly to man, he doth it two wayes, or by two sorts of words, written in the hearts of men, or in the Creatures legibly, which are two Books, in which God expresseth his will; or else by voice, im∣mediately framed by himselfe, or his Prophets inspired by him; the Scripture confirme's all this Philosophy; First for men, I need not write of their inward Words;

Psal. 10.6. speaking of the wicked man, he hath said in his heart, I shall never be removed; so Psal. 14.1. The foole hath said in his heart, there is no God; many times there are words and Speeches in the heart, which were ne∣ver delivered by Tongue or Pen; but never any delivered outwardly, that was not first conceived inwardly; a man may as well be borne, who was never conceived; we may discerne the Spirit of God, shewing us all those wayes of God's speaking, outwardly, Mat. 3. and the last. Lo a voice from Heaven saying, this is my beloved Sonne, in whom I am well pleased; so Rom. 2.15. which shew the works of the Law written in their hearts; there is an ex∣pression by writing; and Rom. 1.19, 20. for God hath shewed it unto them, for the invisible things from the crea∣tion of the World are clearly seene, being understood by the things that are made; there we see a writing in the Crea∣tures, and that written by God, for, saith the Text, God hath sh••wed it unto them. And for God's internall word, Psal. 2.7. The Lord hath said unto me, thou art my Sonne, this day have I begotten thee; here was a Word spoken internally by God, and not to man; it was declared to man, but spoken internally only to his Sonne. Much more may be added, to this purpose, but I love not to weary my Reader unnecessarily; The word spoken of in my Text, is this internall word, and therefore written with an Article, the, or that Word, emphatically; other words are the words of Isaiah, Ieremiah, Iohn, Peter, or the like; but this was the, that word, the like of which never was; and to this will agree most aptly all which St. Iohn discourseth, as will appeare in my prosecution of it, and to none other.

Sect. 11.

And in this St. John giveth the Son of God no new name, but such as men knew him by long before Saint John's time; The Philosophers in all ages,* 1.31 when their Soules soared so high as to contemplate the essence of God, his creation and government of the world, they said, he had a Son, or mind, which proceeded from him like Light from the Sun, (that is a simile they are fre∣quent in) and they termed that Son his word; and they say, that that Word made the world, and gave Life and being to all things; thus Trismegistus in the first Chap∣ter of his Poemander: and Section 4. according to the edition of Flussus, he saw in his rapture an indefinite Light; then in the fifth Section he enquired, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, what comes out of the light? the answear was made, The holy word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the holy word; then in the sixth Section, when Trismegistus had begg'd an expression of this vision, I, saith Poemander, I 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 intellectus, mens, I a Spirit, I translate it, or, as is commonly amongst those Philosophers, the Supreme Spirit of God, I that Spirit, thy God, am that light: and presently after, that bright or resplendent Word, which thou didst see come out, is the Son of God; I could shew much more to this purpose out of him, but this is enough to shew, that this, which St. John deliver's here, when he calle's the Son of God the word internall, is according to the language of this Philoso∣pher; if there could be any farther doubt, let any man read that whole Chapter, he shall find his expressions extremely full; the same may be found up and down in Plato, the Sibylls, Zoroaster, and many more, which I need not name, because the observations out of them are made by many, and as well as this acknowledged by Socinus, as I shall shew presently.

Sect. 12.

* 1.32But this one thing more may be worth the marking, that not onely those Philosophers, which writ before St. Iohn, had these expressions, but those who lived af∣ter him, as Plotinus, Porphyrius, Iamblicus, Proclus; but Amelius, who lived after him about two hundred years, more or less, observe's this concordance of St. Iohn with them: it is true, he call's him a Barbarian, as the pride of the Grecians did all that were not Grecians, but, that, by the Barbarian, he mean't St. Iohn, is evident, because he set's down the words of this Text, I treat of, and some following verses, and approve's the Consent of that Barbarian: well then, this being a language of learned men, before St. Iohn, to call the Son of God the Word of God, in respect of his Divine nature; and it being observed by Philosophers, who had no by-end, but onely the apprehension of this Evangelist, I see no reason why we should be forced to give it a violent sense, not used by any, and most unconsisting (as will appear by the examination of every word) with the rest.

Sect. 13.

This consent of these Philosophers Socinus foresaw, and therefore,* 1.33 pag. 37. of this Treatise, he handle's this Sentence, The word was made fl••sh, he saith [Si ea non add••d••sset] If he had not added these words (the word was made fl••sh) some man might, and that by right, have fallen into that errour, &c. that he should think that word, of which Iohn write's, to be another thing, or sometimes to have been another thing from the man Iesus, and perhaps endowed with Platonical Philosophy, when he should see him here cal∣led God, and in the beginning to be wi••h God, (this is

pag. 38.) to make the world, &c. he should presently believe that our Evangelist was conformable to Plato, who hath writ of God some things out of which this opinion of the Trinity did flow; and presently after he saith, that other Philo∣sophers had it from Trismegistus] and acknowledgeth Iamblichus; so that he yield's that some before, and some after St. Iohn, understood this phrase of St. Iohn's, according to our exposition; but I think that he can shew me no writer, before, or after, unless Photinians and themselves, which are the same, that expounded this Text of the humanity of Christ; what concern's that verse, which Socinus apply's that discourse to, I shall meet with in its proper place; but what concern's me now, I cannot but think it reasonable, that when so ma∣ny learned Authors had philosophized with such learned discourses concerning God, his Word, and Spirit, under that language and notion, I cannot but imagine it most congruous to reason, that those divine Speculations of theirs, so far as true, should be countenanced by one Evangelist, one infallible Writer of Divine Truths, that every man might hear God speaking to him in his own language.

Sect. 14.

I am sure the first fathers, almost all,* 1.34 because they had to do with philosophical men, made use of those conveniencies they had with Scripture, and so did Saint Paul; and I may say of our Evangelist, that he did fre∣quently make use of their language and expressions, ne∣ver b••ulking them, but chusing them before other, where they were fit for his purpose, and especially Pla∣to: I could instance in very many of this kind, which any man, who is acquainted with these Authors, know's; but I will select two or three, which have not, as I know

of, been used to such purpose; and the first shall be out of Plato's Epistle to Hermias,* 1.35 Erastus, and Coriscus; these three, in that Epistle, he invite's to have a kindness and friendship one with another, and, to avoid all diffe∣rences, he adviseth to establish a kind of Covenant and Law one with another, and confirm that even by an oath; in which Oath they should call God to witness, [who is the Captain of all things, present, and future, and the Lord, who is father of that Captain, and cause, whom, saith he, if we truly philosophize, we shall know clearly all of us, so far as the nature of a happy soul can attain unto] in this speech, we see, he clearly set's down the Son of God to be the cause and governour of all things, as in an hundred, well-nigh, other places; then he saith, such as are vertuous shall see him clearly, as a happy soul can do; what is this, but, which holy Job, who was before him too, said, I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that in my fl••sh I shall see God, Job 19.25, 26. and the same that St. John relate's our Saviour to express in his prayer, this is life eternal, that they might know thee the onely true God, and Iesus Christ whom thou hast sent, John 17.3. life eternal, that is the felicity Plato speak's of: it is true, Plato could not say, Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent, because in his humanity our Saviour was not yet seen in the world; but Plato spake of him according to his Di∣vinity, that felicity consisted in the clear vision of him; and, I may truly say, I was extremely delighted with the observations of this place, and some other more fre∣quently observed; but as I was delighted with this, so I did admire to find Plato,* 1.36 in his Phoedo, or de anima, de∣scribing the heaven where happy souls shall be, when they are departed from th••s life, by those stones which Saint Iohn doth the heavenly Ierusalem, Rev. 21. Plato set's

down three of them, a Sardius, a Iasper, a Smaragdos, with an &c. that there were more. St. Iohn, in the 19. verse, put's them down in another order, a Iasper, a Sardius, and the third a Chalcedony, the fourth an Eme∣rald, which fourth, in the Greek, is Smaragdos; now I could not but justly wonder at this Consent, and per∣haps may think that there is some greater Mystery in it then is yet discovered; howsoever, this serve's my turn to shew, that St. Iohn never avoided the language and expressions of these preceding Philosophers, but used them: This Dialogue, called Phoedo in Plato, contain's that Discourse which Socrates delivered to his friends, at the day of his death, and his whole Comportment in it; amongst other passages, having philosophized con∣cerning the immortality of the soul, and answered all their objections, he fall's to treating, how it fared with souls departed, which died wicked, good, better, best; and therein, describing the habitations of those happy souls, put's down these very stones, which St. Iohn men∣tion's, with an Et caetera. This being then apparent, that these gallant and great Philosophers, both before, and after St. Iohn, used this Term Word as he doth, and that St. Iohn no where avoid's their expressions, it is reasonable to think he should not do so here, unless we would find some greater violence offered to the sense of the Text by it, then is yet discovered; or unless, by some other interpretation, we might discern the mean∣ing more clearly expounded, when by their way every term is wrested, as will appear.

Sect. 15.

Well, to proceed; this Word being taken for the Son of God, is said, according to his Divinity, to be in

the beginning, absolutely, without any limitation, when things first leaped out of nothing,* 1.37 [and (saith St. John) the word was with God] Socinus expound's this, thus; [h••c est, that is Jesus, as he was the word of God, before he was manifested by the preaching of the Baptist, Soli Deo notus erat, was onely known to God] (marke this word, onely) Therefore Valentinus Smalcius was very much to blame, when in the third part of Smiglecius cap. 26. pag. 234. editione Racov. 1613. he saith, in ex∣presse termes, that Socinus doth not adde (Deo soli) known to God onely, but to God, and not to men; I shall endeavour to confute both what Socinus, and what he saith; they both agree, and so doth Valkelius and the rest, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is as much as to be seen or known of God; that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which we render (with) signifye's to be discerned; but they are not so elegantly expresse, as they were before, to tell us by what figure, but they in∣sist much upon the negative part; first, that Christ was not known by any, but God, before St. John's preach∣ing; known he was, but not to be the word; I have shewed that he was not the word, in their sense, before he was preached, but, that they may have all the Scope that may be, he was not known that he should be the Word before, but onely to God; suppose I granted all this, would it follow, that to be with God, is to be known of God? it can hardly be deduced, for then to be with God should signifie nothing but the common condition which bring's to all things, past, present, and to come, for all are known of him; but they seeme to parallel this with the first Epistle of this Evangelist, Chap. 1.2. where he speaking of eternall life, which was with the Fa∣ther, and was manifested to us, there the same 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used, as if it were (say they) was manifest to the Father;

take Socinus his own words: [Quod perinde est, which is as much as if he should say, we declare to you eternall Life, which before this no man kn••w, because it was only known to God, who had decreed to give it you;] this is in his fif∣teenth page, for understanding which place we may ob∣serve that it is true, that this eternal word of God, which is mentioned in St. Johns Gospell, was hid with God from all bodily eyes, untill the manifestation of it by the incarnation and nativity of our Saviour, and that be∣cause he was with God in the bosome of the Father, as it is expressed John 1.18▪ but after the birth of Christ, in that personall union, it was seen, and heard, as the first verse of this first chap. of his first Epistle expresseth it; but, in relation to their sense, give me leave to expound that second verse of the first chap. of the first Epistle of St. John, so much of it as concerne's our businesse, which is thus much; we declare to you eternall life, which was with the Father, and is now manifested to us; this eternall happy being, which we hope to enjoy hereafter, so much I find consented unto; now (saith Socinus) this Life was only known to God, for (was with the Father) must be so understood by them. I deny this, for, with∣out doubt, the Angels know it, which then enjoyed it,* 1.38 and those blessed Souls, which were admitted into Abra∣ham's bosome; the Prophets saw it, and taught this eter∣nall Life; many Philosophers knew it, as I have shewed you, and could produce Twenty more, if it were need∣full; nor, as they answer concerning the word, can they say, they did not know the quale or the quantum, the quality or the quantity of it, for they did know the quality to consist in the beatifical vision; they did know the quantity, that it was eternall; so that then this phrase [which was with God] cannot be understood of being

known to him by being decreed such; so that this phrase may, if not must, thus be expounded; in the latter part of the preceding verse the Apostle call's our Saviour the word of life; we shall find in the fourth verse of the first chap. of his Gospel, in him the word was life; in this fi••st verse and the words this is applyed to [the word was with God] this life then must needs be with him, because in the word, which was with him, not onely because known by him,* 1.39 but then, when our Saviour had divulged the Gospell: then this life, which was in the word with the Father, was manifested to us, that is divulged, not onely to Prophets by revelation, or Philosophers and Wise men by reason and contemplation, but even to us men, who cannot soare in so high Speculations with our discourse to apprehend it by faith, and not only so, but to appre∣hend the way of getting it by the merits of Jesus Christ; so that then the Socinian glosse upon this Text is utterly false, which saith, that this Life was onely known to God; when, for ought I find, the Philosophers, many of them,* 1.40 apprehended it much better then they, because they conceived the immortality of the Soule; and that the Soul coming from God must needs go to him, and receive according to its works in this flesh; when they, the Socinians, conceive the Soul of man like a beast's, to return to nothing of its self, but its cor∣rupted principles, where Philosophers apprehended the Soul to return to its incorruptible principle, God; so that the text meane's thus much; that the life which was with God, as in the fountaine of it, was by our most blessed Saviour revealed to men in such a way, as might most clearly manifest him to the meanest Capacity by faith. Socinus hath another Text, which he would have to serve this illustration, but I find it not mentioned by

his followers, as not of force to clear this exposition.

Sect. 16.

This is Luke 2. and the last, Jesus increased in Wis∣dome and Age (so he, but better, Stature,* 1.41 as we) and grace with God and men, that is, in Dei conspectu: the Strength of this comparison lye's in this Word (with) which is not the same with what was so rendred in St. John; that was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; but I stand not upon this; the very Sense, be it what it will, will overthrow his exposition, for I must not run away to other extra∣vagancies; for he could not grow in Wisdome, Stature or grace in conspectu Dei, which is his gloss, unlesse he were so re and indeed; and therefore whatsoever is the sense of these Words, which perhaps an other occasion may give me opportunity to expound, his exposition cannot be true; and so I passe from his illustrations of this phrase by Scripture, which I can observe in any of them, and returne to my Text.

Sect. 17.

[The word was with God) that is (saith he) was known to God, and God onely, before the preaching of John Baptist,* 1.42] thus Smalcius likewise, and Valkelius; what concerne's Angels in this exclusive word (Soli) I have already touched; as likewise how he did falsify Socinus, to say, he did not use it; but they are all peremptory, that no man knew he was the word, before the preaching of the Baptist; but then being pinched by Smiglecius with an objection, that he was known to the Shepheards, to the wise men, to Anna and Simeon, he answer's in his 26. chap. to the third part of Smig. page 234. thus; that he was known to God, not onely that he was, but his quality, that

he was the word: that, before the preaching of John Bap∣tist, he was known to neither Men, nor Angels; they knew him that he should be the deliverer of Gods people from the hands of their earthly enemies, but not to be the word; some knew that he should deliver his people from their Sins, but this word they knew not. Well, let my Text con∣fute all this, which saith, the word was with God in the beginning, therefore he was then the word; if they fly to God's fore-knowledge in his decree (as I have said) it could not be affirmed of him, that he was with God, but should hereafter be with him: then secondly, that he should be the word, in their sense, is no more, but that he should manifest the will of God concerning mens Salvation, his Gospel-will, and that was known be∣fore; I know not how Smiglecius pressed his Argument, whether in those general terms, which Smalcius produ∣ceth, or particular; but to this very distinction of his I shall presse old Simeon's nunc dimittis, Luke 2.32. where our Saviour is said to be a light, to lighten the Gen∣tiles; now let any man imagine how he should be this light, but by revealing this will of God to them; for my part, I can conceive no other; and yet this is the whole matter, which they make to be expressed by this Term, word; for although the Term its self be not expressed, yet it is clea••ly implyed, in that the whole sense of it is either a Metaphor, or a Metonymie, is evi∣dent; to this I could adde, that the Prophets foresaw this, so Isaiah 60.3. The Gentiles shall come to thy light, that is, the light which his Sermons, his miracles did give, and that evidence of God's will for our Salvation which he did hold forth; this is enough to shew, that the Socinians were over-seen in saying, that, according to their sense, no man foresaw that our Saviour should be

the word, as well as in saying, that God did know him to be such, when he was not such, that is, before the preach∣ing of the Baptist; and, to conclude; I have no more to do with this phrase concerning their objections, but set down the true meaning of them, which is thus. The Word, which I have shewed was in the beginning, the internall Word, was with God, it would not else indeed be from him, for being an internall effect of his understand∣ing, it proceeded not in••o any externall existence, but remained there eternally, in Sinu Patris, in the bosome of the Father; but lest any man should doubt that this word might be some accident of another nature then God was, the Text adde's, the word was God.

Sect. 18.

What the Word is in their Sense, what in ours, is ap∣parent; now it remaine's whether in theirs, or ours,* 1.43 it may be most truly said, that the word was God: in their sense it is, that he, who declare's the will of God, for the Salvation of men, is God; though he be a man, according to his nature, yet he is a God according to his Office; nor will I do them that injury to say, they affirme him God onely in regard of this one particular of revealing the will of God, but they say, that planè Div••na Virtus in illo relu∣cebat. So Socinus in his defense of his Animadversi∣ons contra Pasnonienses, in assertionem primam, cap. 4. pag. 74. edit. Racov. 1618. So that the effect of their saying is, that Christ, who was this word, was a Creature endowed with divine excellencies.

But we say, that this Word which, is a reall Word, was God in its nature, by being the naturall Son of the Father, as my Text, he was God.

Sect. 19.

* 1.44Their exposition of this Text is thus, that this Term, God, is not a proper name to that infinite excellency which created and governe's Heaven and Earth; but an Appellative, or name of Office and Authority; not a name signifying any essence or person, so Socinus upon these Words, and his Followers; but yet he grant's that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it is often applyed to the great God of all; he saith it is often given to Angels and Men; he seeme's much to delight in that place, John 10.34. It is written in your Law, I have said ye are Gods, ver. 35. if he call them Gods, unto whom the word of God came, &c. this he stand's upon in the Book before specifyed contra Pasno▪ but in his Comment upon this Text, he insist's upon that Text, 1 Cor. 8.5. For, though there be that are called Gods, whether in Heaven or Earth (as there be Gods many, and Lords many) ver. 6. but unto us there is but one God, &c. [now (saith he) this shewe's, that there are many Gods, besides the great God, of one of which this Text ought to be understood,] and, to confirme this, he, in the Chapter before alleadged contra Pasn. page 74. urgeth, that the Apostle, to shew that he mean't not the great God, left out an Article here at 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which he put before; and this is much insisted upon by Smalcius, Valk••lius, and the rest; I shall take these in order, and endeavour to answear them, I think that this same Term 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.45 or God in our language, signifye's God in his essence throughout the New Testament, which is the onely Authenticke book we have to give any undoubt∣ed assent unto for any Term there used; for although it may sometimes be otherwise used, yet there is al∣wayes some Comment, some words added to it, which

do illustrate it in such a manner, as any reasonable man may discerne that it is applyed to an extrinsecall Sense; in this piece I shall apply my self principally to Crellius, who hath a Chapter of purpose against it, being the 13. Chapter of the first Book de Deo & ejus Attributis, not avoiding any thing I find other where.

Sect. 20.

This Doctrine of mine Crellius allowe's, in such ca∣ses, where this word God is spoken of such powers [quae ne imperia quidem sunt propriè, sed similitudinem tantum cum eis habent; which are not truly Empires, but have a likenesse onely to them,] so saith he, Sathan,* 1.46 is called the God of this Word, 2 Cor. 4.4.] where we see it so ex∣plained as any man may know the true God is not mean't; so likewise the Prince of this World, John 12.3. so likewise the belly, Philip. 3.19. whose God is their belly; in all which he that runneth may reade,* 1.47 this Word God is a Metaphor, so applyed to other things by the very Context, that he cannot choose but discerne it to be used out of its proper sense; but this is it I con∣tend for, that out of the New Testament no man can shew that this Word in the singular number, without a Comment to expound it, in a diverse Sense, is used, for any, but for the great God, as it is put here in this; I have bestowed much pains to examine all places used by this Apostle, either in his Gospell, Epistles, or Apoca∣lyps, and I can find none, so that, undoubtedly, it is not his language; that Criticisme which is so much stood upon by Crellius, Socinus and all of that opinion,* 1.48 that where there is no Article put to a Word, there it may be understood in a large Sense, but where an Article, in a more strict, for which he tightly produced St. Cyrill;

I answer, That neither with Article, nor without can they shew me any place where this word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.49 or God, is used in the singular number absolutely, without some addition to expound it otherwise, for any but the true and great God; if there had been any, sure, after so much paines as they have taken in this Theam, they would have found it; so that then this Word God be∣ing put absolutely (the word was God) without any limi∣tation or exposition, it must be understood of the true and great God;* 1.50 those Instances of Socinus will give no denyall to my conclusion; that of John 10.34. where it is said of men, that God had said they were Gods; consider here the plurall number, which one onely thing is enough to distinguish them from the true God, who can be but one; but then reade the next words, ver. 35. he called them Gods, to whom the word of God came: ob∣serve here that these Gods were not such by their na∣ture, but by the power of the word of God, and therefore must be of another nature from him; so likewise that in 1 Cor. 8.5. there are Gods many, and Lord▪ many, that is, many which by Gentiles are worshipped for Gods and Lords, ver. 6. yet to us there is but one God, &c. a man may say of these, either they are true Gods or false; if true, they are Gods to us; if false, we have nothing to do with them; though others magnify them and adore them for Gods, yet to us they are not Gods; so that here we have the Context teaching the Sense of these phrases clearly; but in my Text it is put absolutely, without relation to any particular, and therefore ought to be allowed in its proper sense; and for the rule of St. Cyrill,* 1.51 I may justly say of it, that it is to be under∣stood of such words which in their genuine and proper signifiation have such a double sense, a large and a re∣strained

sense, but such Words, which do naturally and properly sign••fie one, and by a Figure sign••fie other things, when they are used for other things, they ought to have some Circumstance to expound that they are applied to those other things, of which nature this word God is, it properly sign••fie's that Divine excellency; but, when it is affirmed of other things, it is out of some resemblance or participation of his Divine Excel∣lencies, which are in them; and then, for what I can find either from them, or mine own Study, there is some Circumstance or other, which demonstrate's that application to us, as may appear out of all these instances before.

Sect. 21.

But Smalcius in his Refutation Libelli de divina verbi incarnati natura, cap. 8. pag 94. urgeth against our Con∣ceit thus; [Si in principio, &c. If in the beginning with God, or in God (as Smiglecius would have it) none can be but God, and that which is in God is God, certainly he who say's of another, that he is in God, say's likewise that he is God, nor may he adde that he is God, but by a Tau∣tology; therefore because St. John had said before that he was with God, and added, that he was God, he did not before affirm, that he was God, when he said, he was with God.] This is his discourse,* 1.52 and it is somewhat per∣plexed, but the meaning, I guess, is, that this were a Tautology in St. Iohn, if the Antecedent were true, but I will answer all in a word; although it be true, that whatsoever is with God eternally must be God, yet this truth being not so apparent to every man's understand∣ing, it was most useful, for the instruction of men about these divine Truths, that there should be some expres∣sions made of it.

But pag▪ 50. Smalcius proceed's with another objecti∣on,* 1.53 whereas Smiglecius had said, that in this place, God is put absolutely and properly, which is never said of any man, and had expounded what he mean's by that phrase ab∣solutely, to wit, when there is no word to shew that it is used improperly (Certè) [Surely (saith he) the Word, or Sermo, speech (so he will render it) is not absolutely here called God, for it is a great demonstration of an improper signifi∣cation, that, in the sentence just before, it was said, The word was with God, to wit, that one God.] I will a little abreviate his discourse; this cannot be, (saith he) if that God be that word or speech, for (saith he) that one God cannot be with himself; that is the force of his Argu∣ment, and my answer I shall draw up short; although nothing, and so not God, can be with himself, because, to be with whomsoever, intimate's a diversity; yet that, which is the same in one respect, may differ from him in another, and, in that regard, be said to be with him, as, in the first, to be that other: Socrates and Plato are in a Room together, Socrates may properly be said to be a man, and to be with a man; although these persons in the Trinity differ not altogether as much as Socrates and Plato, for ought we know, because these are not distinct individurl natures, as they are; yet being distinct per∣sons, agreeing in the same nature, they may be, either of them, truly affirmed to be God, and with one another, which is God; which I think is very evident to any in∣tell••gent man.

Again, he urgeth (Si porro) Moreover, if he be not ab∣solutely God, who is not the God of all things, and is con∣stituted a God, surely Christ is not God, for he is not the God of the Father] and the second part, that he was constituted a God, he prove's out of Acts 2.36. where it is

said, that God hath made that same Iesus, whom ye crucified, both Lord and Christ,* 1.54 [Lord or God (saith he) are all one] before I go further, I shall deny that; Lord is a relative, Lord and servant are relatives, but God is an absolute term, and therefore, as Tertullian excellently dispute's against Hermogenes, God was eternally God, but not eter∣nally Lord, untill the generations of the Earth were finished; and this distinction is observed all along the first chap∣ter of Genesis, untill the fifth verse of the second; when the world was completed, he is called God still; but from thence all along the Lord God; therefore there is a great difference betwixt saying, our Saviour was made Lord of all, and that he was made God; this I put down here, for fear it might slip out of my head hereafter, when I come to examine the Argument.

To the first piece:* 1.55 that this word is not the God of the Father, I answer, the word can have no eminency beyond him whose word it is: but he is God with the Father, the same God in essence, coëqual, coëternal with him; nei∣ther is the Father a God over the Son, that is, of an higher excellency, as he is God, but as he is man, as he hath all his being, dignity, eminency, whatsoever he hath, from the Father; he is God of God, light of light, but no whit inferiour to the Father, but eternally proceeding from him; as he was man, so he was constituted Lord and Christ, as he was the word, spoken by God in his etern••l generation; as man, he was blessed by God in his tem∣poral productions.

And this sufficeth, for ought I can discern, to answer such Arguments as I find against our opinion: I would have reserved this for another Discourse; I intended (God willing) to justifie these Truths by reason, but that I thought thus much necessary to clear this 〈◊〉〈◊〉.

Well then, this being sufficiently shewed, that the word was God, not man, and ought to be understood in its plain and express terms, that the word was God; I shall proceed.

Notes

• * 1.1

  The next name of our Saviour, the Word.
• * 1.2

  Socinus an∣swerd in his Explication of St. John Ch. 1.
• * 1.3

  The opin••on of Ebion and Cerinthus dis∣cussed.
• * 1.4

  Epiphanius con∣tra haeret. tom. 2. cap. 28
• * 1.5

  The shifts of the Socinians.
• * 1.6

  St. Iohn's ••ea∣son of his wri∣ting not soli∣tary, as Socinus alledg••th.
• * 1.7

  Beza's ge∣nuine lection.
• * 1.8

  Socinus rigu∣la•• in his▪
• * 1.9

  But for a little consonance with Treme∣lius.
• * 1.10

  How the Soci∣nians inter∣pret, Joh. 1.1.
• * 1.11

  With re••e∣rence to the Baptist's prea∣ching.
• * 1.12

  Their Meta∣phor.
• * 1.13

  And Metony∣mie.
• * 1.14

  Figures never used by Christ, with∣out intimati∣on how the text is to be understood.
• * 1.15

  So that of a vine.
• * 1.16

  A Shepheard.
• * 1.17

  A Doore.
• * 1.18

  His Metony∣mies of being the Truth, Life, and Re∣surrection, &c.
• * 1.19

  The Truth and life may be taken with∣out a figure.
• * 1.20

  Christ called the Word, ac∣cording to none of those figures.
• * 1.21

  But according to the Catho∣lick sense is the internal Word of God.
• * 1.22

  How Aaron was Moses's mouth.
• * 1.23

  John Baptist call'd a voice.
• * 1.24

  The Wo••d taken for Christ in a farre different sense.
• * 1.25

  Not to be un∣derstood of our Saviour's humanity.
• * 1.26

  Neither Me∣taphorically,
• * 1.27

  Nor Metony∣mically.
• * 1.28

  Socinus's shift.
• * 1.29

  A brief Para∣phra•••• W••••es the first 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in St John.
• * 1.30

  A Word inter∣nal and exter∣nal, both of God and Man.
• * 1.31

  The Philoso∣phers of old call••d the Son of God his Word.
• * 1.32

  As well they who writ af∣ter, as who be∣fore, St. John.
• * 1.33

  Which is yielded by So∣cinus.
• * 1.34

  Their lan∣guage used by the primitive Fathers and St. Paul.
• * 1.35

  That of Plato con••onant to holy Job's and our Saviour's in St. John.
• * 1.36

  Plato's de••••••l∣ption of hea∣ven parallel'd to that of St. John in his Revelation.
• * 1.37

  The words Be∣ing with God signifie more th••n Known to God, against Socinus and h••s ••ollowers
• * 1.38

  Eternal life before Christ's I••carnation knowne to the Angel••, bles∣sed Souls, Pro∣phets, Philoso∣phers.
• * 1.39

  Although not till afterward, manifested to others.
• * 1.40

  The Ph••loso∣phers excell the Socinians in this know∣ledge.
• * 1.41

  Socinus's o∣ther Text of no validity to his purpose.
• * 1.42

  The Discourse resumed con∣cerning the knowledge of the Word be∣fore the preaching of St. John Bap∣tist.
• * 1.43

  Whether in the Socinian or Catholick sense may be more truly said, the Word was God.
• * 1.44

  God, with them, no pro∣per name, but an Appella∣tive▪ &••▪
• * 1.45

  Contrary to the use of it (single) th••oughout the New Te∣stament.
• * 1.46

  How Satan is called, the God of this World, &c.
• * 1.47

  How the bel∣ly, God.
• * 1.48

  The Socinian's Criticisme a∣bout the Ar∣ticle.
• * 1.49

  Answered.
• * 1.50

  And Soci••u••'s Instances.
• * 1.51

  How St. Cy∣r••ll's rule is to be understood
• * 1.52

  Smalcius an∣swered about Tautology.
• * 1.53

  As likewise to that objecti∣on, God cannot be with himself.
• * 1.54

  Lo••d and God not both one.
• * 1.55

  The Word God with, though not of the Father.